Posted
by
Zonk
on Thursday November 23, 2006 @04:16PM
from the when-the-man-has-an-agenda- dept.

Dystopian Rebel writes "A New Jersey public-school history teacher was recorded telling his students that they 'belong in Hell' if they do not accept Jesus. The teacher, who is also a Baptist Pastor, lied later when he was asked by the school principle what he said to the students. Unfortunately for this dodge, a student recorded the teacher's 'lesson'." From the article: "The student and his parents have requested that the teacher's anti-scientific remarks be corrected in open class, and that the school develop quality control procedures to ensure that future classes are not proselytized and misinformed. They have also referred the matter for disciplinary action. No apology has been forthcoming from the teacher or from the school."

We all go to hell. See
Thermodynamics of Hell [ediblebrain.com] for a good story.
The good point made there is that regardless of which relegion you have, you will end up in hell because each religion claims that their's is the only correct one and the non-believers will go to hell.
Happy to be one who doesn't need a religion to accept to go to hell. Finally a warm place to relax.

Buddhism is even more diverse than this. You have your choice of the following:

1. In the earliest classical orthodox variants, if you committed an gross aggressive act against another person, you would wind up reincarnated HERE, but as a less advanced form of life. Thus after descending to being an understudy of a reality show film double, you would come back the second time as the particular molecule of virus that scientists rip apart to make the hollow double used to prevent the spread of virulent AIDS. Thus through your immediate torment and suffering for your action, you would help save another's life, and thus begin your climb back up the chain of karma.

2. In the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism, you experience a subjective emotional hell right here, right now. You know, that blinding screeching rage against the machine, and Bogombo Snuff Boxes. (Ask Kurt Vonnegut about that last one. Sorry, Kurt Vonnegut short stories are not available through P2P.)

3. In fact, you do not go anywhere. All you have succeeded in doing is making a minor conceptual mistake, for which Buddhism is quite lenient. You are hereby sentenced to another lifetime of approximately the qualuity you are experiencing now, to further study the error of your ways. Sound dull? That's the point. None of that artificial excitement of Christianity.

As a practicing Zen Buddhist, you ego doesn't get reincarnated which is the "I" or "Me" that we experience.

What is reincarnated however is the negative karma, the suffering you have caused yourself and others is recincarnated into the cycle of birth and death. The good karma is 'absorbed' into the Cosmic Buddha.

Everyone is a Buddha, no matter how "bad" or "wicked" they are. It is a matter of realizing your true Buddha nature, the perfection of yourself and others sans the delusional thinking.

Doing Zen meditation (maybe koan study) and following the ten precepts is the only way to realize your true Buddha nature. The ten precepts are not too different than the ten commandments intrestingly enough.

Buddhism doesn't believe in any higher power or god. It doesn't really matter, everyone is responsible for themselves, God/god(s) or not.

As a side note, if you are thrown into a Buddhist hell, according to Buddhist pantheon seems like a far worse place to be than the Christian Hell. But in Buddhist hell you can be reborn into another realm by doing virtuous deeds and saving and helping any sentient being.

It's a clash between science and stupidity. You'll never hear someone like Dawkins talk about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science, because he wants to limit the debate to right-wing fundie atheists vs. right-wing fundie Christians.

It's a clash between science and stupidity. You'll never hear someone like Dawkins talk about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science, because he wants to limit the debate to right-wing fundie atheists vs. right-wing fundie Christians.

Quite the contrary. Dawkins talks a lot about the 'moderate' Christians, as he considers that a large number of those have a 'soft' belief that is succeptible to rational argument. He describes the antics of the fundamentalists in an attempt to get through to the millions. And good luck to him.

Everything I've read by Dawkins suggests that he has no concept what non-fundamentalist Christians are; he's talking only about apathetic fundamentalists.

He and the fundamentalists need each other, so he treats fundamentalists as the essential definition of Christianity (rather than as a modernist group under two hundred years old, and a definite minority among Christians in general), and they treat people like him as the essential definition of atheism. Both get the bogeyman they need to have people buy their "cure".

There is a huge difference between reading about him, and reading what he actually wrote.

This is so wrong. Dawkins is British, and knows well the Church of England, a far from fundamentalist branch of Christianity. He has spoken at length about what he feels about Christianity and religion in general, even moderate versions. If you think Dawkins is only targetting minorities in religious, you really haven't read him in any detail.

the Church of England, a far from fundamentalist branch of Christianity

The church of England is a very weird thing. At one end you have the guys over in the US and Canada, who are so permissive they're just about to get kicked out. Then there are the churches over in Africa and other third-world countries that are rather conservative (maybe even what you call 'fundamentalist'). And then there's the part that's actually in England which is leaning towards the permissiveness of the US and the Canadians. If things continue as they are going right now, the Church of England might not exist in England anymore!

At any rate, the Anglicans are a rather diverse bunch and it's unfair to make a blanket statement about them. Even my generalisations were probalby too much.

Reminds me of the C of E Bishop who was asked what basic beliefs a person really needed to have if they wanted to become an ordained priest within the C of E. The questioner didn't find the answer very informative so he tried to start from a more concrete position: would one need to believe in God? The Bishop's reply: "That's a very good question."

Actually, questions about "god" are *NOT* central to philosophy---at least, not in the last 100 years or so, and at least in the mainstream anglo-american tradition. (I offer this tidbit since I am a professor of philosophy.) With few exceptions, any such discussions are limited to professors covering classical arguments for the existence of god in a intro class or to some discussion of "philosophy of religion".

Moreover, it is a pretty invidious distinction to say "well, the god question is old, and so real, but the FSM is new and just parody." I mean, the Jesus hypothesis was pretty new at one point . . . .

Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.

No, it mocks people who believe in invisible things for which there is absolutely no evidence, who then attempt to elevate their beliefs to the level of scientific fact, or alternatively, attempt to drag science down to the level of religion.

Similarly, if I met someone who still believed that disease was caused by demonic possession, I'd mock them, too.

"Evidence" is a word with a defined meaning. You can't just take it and claim that "having a warm and fuzzy feeling about something" also qualifies as evidence, because... it doesn't.

If you need a word to describe your personal feelings about the existence of god, then go and invent one by yourself, instead of misusing a well-known terminus in an attempt to somehow give your personal beliefs more credibility.

I have evidence for God from many people I've met in my life, as well as people I've read about. Just because I can't represent my evidence with data is no grounds for me not to believe it.

Why can't you? If you have evidence, surely you can explain it? Certainly whatever you learned from "many people" can be represented as "data." "4 people I know have testified that their life was changed by God" -- that's data, though it may not be very convincing. Stating that there is evidence but you don't really know what it is, however - that's the same thing as stating that you have no evidence.

The only difference between God and underpants gnomes or FSM is that the question of God is a central question in philosophy, including discussion of what "God" even means to different people from different real living cultures around the world. Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.

It's called counterexample. The fact that the counterexamples used are funny/mocking (or even rude, to some) doesn't make them any less valid. You're right that the question of gods existing is a central question in philosophy. And counterexample is a technique VERY commonly used in philosophy.

He was going up against this:

There is no evidence for or against X, therefore there should be no belief or disbelief in X.

And he filled in X with FSM instead of God. The fact that one is a "central question in philosophy" and the other isn't is exactly the purpose of counterexample.

Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.

You really ought to have been able to do this exercise on your own impulse if you had any intention at all of understanding the point the poster was getting at, but since you insist on being spoon-fed, here comes the big choochoo: replace FSM and Underpants gnomes with Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, etc. etc. If your agument doesn't work as well for them as for the christian God, you really need to provide an explenation why.

Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-Bertrand Russell

Just because you believe it doesn't give it any evidence to it being true, material or whatever else you want to call evidence. I believe wood is a reincarnation of my cat fluffy, this is just as true a belief as any belief you have.

So essentially, he still considers moderates to be illegitimate. He is just as much a fundamentalist as his enemies - in his view, you MUST be an atheist or you're "irrational". Just like how the Christian fundies think everyone MUST be a Christian.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric that atheism is inherently more rational. Neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God doesn't exist have any scientifically admissible evidence behind them. A real skeptic would therefore believe neither. Dawkins, however, has a ton of faith in the latter.

This is a rather strange definition of skeptic.

Let's try an analogy.

The Earth is filled with custard - lots of it, hot and molten.

What do you mean, you don't think so? Surely a good skeptic should neither believe or not believe in that?

It is hard to be a skeptic by your definition - all those (possibly infinite) number of things to neither believe and also not believe!

All Dawkins is doing is being a true skeptic, and saying that he doesn't believe in anything without evidence.

Being a skeptic does not mean you have to be agnostic about everything.

"Being a skeptic does not mean you have to be agnostic about everything."

But it does mean that you have faith in skepticism as the correct philosophy to live by.

No, it doesn't work like that. Skepticism is not a faith, it is a state of mind that we all achieve, to a greater or lesser extent, simply by growing up - it is part of mature human nature. When we are young, we are are trusting and naive.

I have a copy of the "Fundamentals of Neuroscience" and I don't see that fact mentioned anywhere. Now, realize that I share the same "faith" as you, but also realize that to Christians, God is also a "fact". Declaring something to be a fact does not mean that it's not a belief you hold. (Even if it were in the Fundies of Neuroscience:), it would still not mean that it's not a belief. God is found mentioned in quite a few places in one of the best selling "reference" books of all time.)

So essentially, he still considers moderates to be illegitimate. He is just as much a fundamentalist as his enemies - in his view, you MUST be an atheist or you're "irrational". Just like how the Christian fundies think everyone MUST be a Christian.

Of course atheists haven't resorted to some tactics used by people to proselytize their religion...

[Knock][Knock]Homeowner: Yes, hello?Atheist: Hello. Have you considered not believing in God?Homeowner: Um, I hadn't really -Atheist: Perhaps you would care to read some of these pamphlets!Homeowner: That's okay I -Atheist: They clearly explain the benefits of not believing in God. Not believing in God changed my life, and it can change yours too.Homeowner: Uhuh, whatever -Atheist: Don't you see what not believing in God can do for you? If you don't not believe in -[SLAM!]

To get picky, weak atheism (mere non-belief) is extremely defensible, although it's very hard to present an affirmative case for it. Strong atheism (active disbelief) is justifiable for some entities, less so for others.I have certainly met people who were religiously zealous about their atheism; I have seen someone call other people fake atheists and accuse them of believing things that are wrong for atheists to believe. I've seen an atheist who believed firmly that he had seen convincing evidence for ps

Actually, Dawkins talks about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science all the time.

You obviously don't read many of his books (such as the latest one, The God Delusion [amazon.com]), nor listen to many of his speeches (most of which can be found on YouTube or at RichardDawkins.net [richarddawkins.net]), because Dawkins has made that seemingly benign group of people the target of many of his criticisms.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins examines how he thinks these people are able to compartmentalize their lives in such a way that makes belief in God possible while also having a natural and healthy skepticism about other, non-religious claims. For instance, most people scoff at the idea that idea that there should be evidence of God's existance before they believe in him, yet would demand just such evidence if I were to claim I had a dragon in my garage [godlessgeeks.com].

While Dawkins certainly loves picking the low hanging fruit (the right-wing religious wackos), he is more than happy to address what he views as the hypocritical moderates. In fact, he has said numerous times that he almost has more respect for people who are steadfast in their religious beliefs than those who are willing to blend modern life with religious dogma.

Thank you. This is a story of something that isn't so bright.:\ Christians are just like everyone else - the majority of them are stupid (just as with atheists, muslims, catholics, etc).

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians...who acknowledge Jesus with their, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That, is what an unbelieving world, simply finds, unbelievable."

Bad #1 - Preaching hellfire and brimstone in a school classroom about science. The two ARE NOT mutually exclusive. Sure, saying you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus may very well be a fact, it has been well established that you are supposed to seperate church from state in a public classroom. To try to get away with it was stupid.

Bad #2 - Lying about it. He acknowledged Jesus with his lips, THEN turned around and denied him by his lifestyle. What are those very students going to think now?

If you feel justified in defying established rules and try to preach the gospel openly in a public school classroom, you have to walk the walk, and accept the consequences. You can't do this halfway. Either way he was stupid to try it, but lying about it makes it even worse.:(

What are their rituals? Where do I sign to become a member? Do their preachers have to live celibate? How often do they pray? What's their concept on afterlife like, heaven/hell, reincarnation or something completely different? Do they have a concept of reward/punishment like sins or karma?

...how exactly do you tell a child what Easter is without telling them about the crucifixion?

I'd probably say something like: "Easter was originally a Pagan festival that celebrated the end of the dark nights of winter and the coming of new life to the world in spring. That's why we have the eggs-and-bunnies thing. Some time later, the Roman Catholic Church thought that the best way to convert the Pagans to their brand of religion was to hijack all of their festivals so they tied in with Christianity. So they moved Jesus' birthday to Midwinter and his 'deathday' to Eastre - an ancient word for spring. Which is why we have all that hot-cross-buns-and-going-to-church thing."

Lots of people were crucified in Roman times. To non-christians (who don't believe in the resurrection) there's not much point in 'celebrating' Jesus' crucifiction in particular as he was just another bloke nailed to a bit of wood.

I say teaching about religious beliefs should be left to the RE teachers. I don't bang on about Atheism in my ICT lessons, why should this idiot be allowed to bang on about Christianity in his history lessons?

Actually, there are those who deny that Jesus ever existed at all. In response, you'll find Christian books that are devoted to proving that he did exist. I actually heard one public school history teacher say something very much along the lines that there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed and that it is likely that other people wrote the words he is credited with saying.

Still, I agree that mentioning the crucifiction in the context of mentioning Easter shouldn't be a problem as long as it is

Actually, the very historicity of Jesus is subject to challenge. However, that's not unusual for history; many historical issues are unclear. However, they are generally presented as being unclear. When it comes to Jesus, however, the very debate tends to get suppressed.Take the cruci-fiction (spelling deliberate). The Romans kept very good records of criminal trials and executions. Many, but not all, of these records survive today. That the Romans did use crucifixion in Palestine as a form of capital punis

The fallacy in Pascal's wager is that you've got several religions to choose from, not just one. What grounds, other than it is the religion you were brought up in, do you have for Christianity (and the flavour thereof that you follow) being the "One True Path" that gets you into the good afterlife and lets you avoid the bad one?

How would you feel if it turns out that you should have converted to Islam? Or that you were out of luck if you weren't born a Jew in the first place? (there's some evidence to suggest that Jesus only ever extended the salvation to the Jews, and that Paul expanded on the message when he started to try to convert the Romans). Maybe Joseph Smith _didn't_ pull Mormanism out of his posterior and it really was revealed to him by God. Or you perhaps should be worshipping Brahman (possibly in one of the many sub-aspects, such as Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti)? Mind you, if the last one turns out to be correct, you'll get another turn on the Wheel later to try again, so that's probably not worth the risk the first time around.

The point here is that, most likely, the only reason you are a Christian is that you were born into a Christian family. If you'd been born in Iran, you'd probably be Muslim. I repeat - how do you choose which religion to follow?

As for the Bible not contradicting itself, that's flat out wrong. Both the Old and the New Testament are full of contradictions, both within each Testament and between them. Heck, arguably the most important story in the New Testament, the story of the birth of Jesus, is completely different between Matthew and Luke.

yes, but tv is something people can choose not to watch, it's a little thing called freedom of speech combined with freedom to choose. A teacher however has a duty of care which overrides any freedom of speech right they may hold outside the classroom.

That duty requires them to teach the children in their care in the manner the community and government define, this is clearly not what happened in this case. Thus the teacher is in breach of their duty of care. T

Every teacher passes on values to their students. Usually this is a combination of their values, and society's values. If you were cynical, you could call this a form of indoctrination, but really, that's what education is to a fair degree. It can help keep society stable, as it prevents a total re-evaluation of society's foundations with every new generation.

The problem here seems to be that this teacher's values are more in line with a minority (of religious wackos) rather than those of greater U.S. society (more pluralistic), and he appears unwilling to teach according to society's values rather than his own.

the issue is not the willpower of the children, it's that he acted in a way contrary to that which he was required to act. A teacher is a public servent, and thus not given the same free speech rights as people in other professions.

I didn't mean a different type of free speech, I meant that his rights are limited and thus not free speech.

Granted, a teacher is free to express opinion *provided* that opinion is one related to the subject at hand, but not just any opinion. We don't have automata teaching children, but nor should we have people who will use a classroom to push their own unrelated agenda.

The most common example is that free speech [wikipedia.org] does not entitle you to yell "fire!" [wikipedia.org] in a crowded theater, but "free speach" can also be trumped by crimes such as "inciting to start a riot" and such. Furthermore, the establishment clause [wikipedia.org] is frequently interpreted to mean that public officials are not allow to _support_ religion while acting in their public role. If this teacher had said something to a student outside of the classroom, it might have raised eyebrows as being inappropriate, but very few people would consider it to be a violation of the establishment clause.w

Public schools in the US are government-managed and as such, the government's responsibility not to endorse any religions means that the teacher's preaching is more in violation of the First Amendment than supported by it.

Atheists on TV? I see plenty about evolution, which is basically atheist preaching.

Evolution isn't atheist at all. Even John Paul II, the last Pope, stated evolution was correct. He said something along the lines that "God" used evolution to create life. Of course the new Pope may very well change that. As for myself, I strongly believe in evolution but I am not an atheist. What I am is agnostic, "a", without, and "gnostis", knowledge. I am without knowledge on the subject of whether there is or is not any supreme diety, soul, or spirit.

Try Russell's teapot [wikipedia.org] then. Entirely physically possible (though rather unlikely) and certainly can't be disproven - do you believe there's a teapot orbiting the sub between earth and mars? Are you agnostic about it? Or do you simply not believe in it? Most atheists are "weak atheists", which is to say that they happily admit the question of the existence of God remains unresolved. They do believe, however, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim of existence, and, pending further evidence, have to lean toward non-existence.

Why are you anonymous?Anyhoo, I'm a christian, I've never claimed to be otherwise. What you state here may very well be true, but you're being prideful and not terribly humble or meek. You're not meeting hte needs of others with your statements.

"Yeah, this is all an accident. Get REAL."

Okay, look. You just insulted a very large base of intelligent people. Evolution, big band, blah blah blah...I would never term those things as "accidental", however there are a large number of Christians that will sit b

About a million years ago, back in the '80s, my 9th grade "Social Studies" teacher decided he was going to toss out our American history book the day before Christmas vacation and pull out his bible and hop upon his pulpit. A couple other students and I got up and started to walk when he threatened to have us suspended for leaving his class. I told him to go ahead, and walked straight to the principal's office and told him what was going on, and asked if I could go home, since it was my last class for the day. I told him I wasn't going to be forced to sit there and be preached at when I"m supposed to be sstudying American history. I wish I'd had a photo of the principal's face when I told him, his color just turned to ash, and he hustled out of the office and down to the classroom. When he returned, he gave me a pass and told me to have a good break.Turns out that the teacher was sitting in the classroom by himself, since the rest of the class took the cue from us and all bailed as well. He got suspended, not the students.

Funny how until about a decade ago, Science was welcomed and seen as the answer, then suddenly the Discovery Institute came up with Intelligent Design and suddenly the thought that science shouldn't be taught anymore comes up.

Does anyone remember what the dark ages were? Looks like we're about to have a relapse.

They were filled with people with hopes and dreams, making discoveries and learning new things just like people do today. Just because they didn't have computers to post on Slashdot or the wealth of scientific knowledge we have today doesn't mean they were "dark."

Science was progressing, albiet more slowly, and for different reasons. Many "natural philosophers" made scientific discoveries while they were looking to prove the bible, or learn more about the nature of God and creation.

The Scientific Revolution roughly 300 years ago was when people started doing research for the sake of expanding knowledge, not for anything else. Yes, scientific knowledge increased and technology became more advanced, but to assume that everything before that point was just darkness and ignorance is arrogant, uninformed and shortsighted.

I have a strong interest in science, which people should remember is not working closer and closer to a definite answer but to a broadening understanding. Scientific study often enough doesn't definitively answer questions, it just raises more questions. For example, quantum physics. 100 years ago scientists thought they could close the physics books. Then Quantum physics came along. Now every new discovery raises more questions. I think that's pretty exciting.

As for creation "science," which is deservedly flame bait, I wish people would distinguish between people who are fanatical about the politics of "Christendom" building ridiculous museums when the millions of dollars should have gone to house the homeless and feed the hungry, and those who are followers of Christ. I consider myself the latter -- simply, a Christian. I believe God created the universe. How he did it is a matter for science to explore.

The Dark Ages weren't all that dark.They were filled with people with hopes and dreams, making discoveries and learning new things just like people do today. Just because they didn't have computers to post on Slashdot or the wealth of scientific knowledge we have today doesn't mean they were "dark."

They weren't so dark because they were lit by the fires of burning heretics, witches, and anyone who espoused a knowledge or wisdom not sanctioned by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Other than that, it was a pea

Europe went from the ancient world of Rome/Greece with its democracy, literacy, technology, plumbing etc, to a world where 90+% of the population were tied to a feudal lord to work land they did not own, were illiterate, shat outside and plagued by disease.

Almost nothing was recorded because almost nobody could write, except people who were so religious they make intelligent design supporters look tame! Sounds pretty dark to me.

The comments made by this teacher were totally inappropriate and took advantage of his authority position. So why not call them that instead of using phrases like "anti-scientific" that imply a war between religion and science?

Religious people of pretty much any flavour seem to be normal people until you hit that one spot where the gears seem to just mash into each other and they go haywire.

This guy shouldn't be teaching, particularly not history. Any loon who tries to tell a bunch of kids that (a) Noah's ark was real and (b) There were dinosaurs on it should have their license to teach revoked.

Marx was right, it is an opiate, because there certainly seem to be a fair share of the users acting like they're on something.

Where the "gears grind" (well put!) is called cognitive dissonance. The tension that occurs when 2 strongly held cognitions (beliefs, feelings, concepts etc) conflict. Common in anybody with strongly held beliefs such as some religious fundies, left/right wing political nutjobs, and audiophiles. People who not only refuse to accept evidence that their beliefs are wrong, but actually may not be able to accept it without a sort of major ego collapse. Kind of scary when you encounter it, isn't it?

"Such people are as much Christians as are scientists who believe the world is flat. Please do not judge us Christians by the actions of these radicals."

You don't get to decide who calls themselves Christians! Christianity isn't a trademark. It is what ever someone says it is to them.

The idea that people will to hell if they don't accept christ as their personal savior is, to my understanding, fairly mainstream Christianity. It is very hard to try and prove that one person's irrational belief is ridiculous and radical whereas your irrational belief is completely reasonable. How do you prove a difference? Trying to claim that your religion is demonstrably "truer" or "more Christian" on rational grounds is going to be a bit of a stretch. I'd say that most Christians aren't very Christian in the sense of following the teaching of Christ which centered primarily around caring for the poor among us. By that standard, the idea of a rich "Christian" preacher is an oxymoron.

Also, your analogy is bunk. Science is a system which praises reason over bind faith. It adapts its theories as more information is learned and tested. It is a system of separating what appears to be true from what is true and it slowly changes and adapts. Religion is a system of irrationality which praises blind faith over reason. It is designed to stay stagnant and never change no matter what we learn. It starts out with an inalienable premise and praises people for sticking with it in spite of evidence against it. A person could not be a scientist and still believe in a flat earth because Science is about Empirical Evidence. A person can be Christian and disagree with the parent poster because Christianity isn't a system based on facts and there is no way to prove a person's Christian beliefs to be "right" or "wrong."

Why are there these people that feel like every other living soul in the world HAS to accept what they believe, otherwise they should be killed/crucified/outcasted/suffer for eternity in the afterlife? Aren't these the people that killed thousands during the Crusades? Aren't these the people that are killing thousands now in the name of Allah? Are all the religions and dieties that man-kind have believed in one way or another so damn righteous as to demand that their followers mame all others in their name?

I just don't understand why people can't accept that others can believe different things than they do. If the whole world was just more accepting of others and respected others' beliefs even if they disagreed, the world would be a much, much better place. Not to mention that millions of innocent people wouldn't have had to die in ages past.

Why are there these people that feel like every other living soul in the world HAS to accept what they believe, otherwise they should be killed/crucified/outcasted/suffer for eternity in the afterlife?

Because that's what God told them, and you don't argue with God. If God says "believe in me or else spend eternity in hell," then who the fuck are you, to use your puny humanoid intellect -- a brain so small that it can't even conceive of 1% of the Lovecraftian aweful truth -- to try to talk God out of his ultimatum?

Now let's say you're a caring, loving person to whom God has told his message. You don't like what God has done, maybe you even hate him for it. You don't understand its seemingly infinite evil, but you also know that you'll never really understand why God has done this, and you just have to accept it. And the thing you have accepted is this: you believe it is a fact that if someone doesn't do what God demands, they will suffer infinitely. It's not something you have chosen; it is the reality imposed upon you.

Is it responsible, given this undesirable situation, to stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? If some hippie says that he understands the universe better than God does, and that "Be good to one another," is a perfectly acceptable policy (and it's certainly a pleasant one!) does that make what the hippie says, be true? Or is it deceiving, taking the easy way out?

Might you be willing to commit a relatively minor atrocity, for the "greater good?" Isn't it really worth it, when you get right down to it, to torture people, put them on the rack or burn them alive, writhing in intense agony -- even doing it for a decade if only a person could actually burn that long without dying -- if it might result in that person doing the right thing? What is a few minutes, or even a century, of suffering, compared to the eternal timescales described in religious dogma? You might not personally have the stomach for it, but "rationally" (please don't explore this too closely;-) you know that it's a good policy to break a few eggs to make that omelette.

Think about it: is there any conceivable thing, any possible evil, than any puny human can possibly commit with their tiny limited means and impotent nuclear weapons (or even planet-destroying Death Stars), that even compares slightly or is anywhere nearly in the same league, to the infinite eternal suffering that a person will endure if they are not saved?

Killing people? Geez, everyone dies eventually. The long-term question is how many people are going to be saved and enjoy the afterlife forever, versus how many people will be utterly destroyed forever or be tortured forever by the devil's minions.

I think that once a fundamentalist really accepts religious dogma -- if they really believe it -- their seemingly-cruel decisions aren't really all that cruel or evil. They are executing the best policies they can, given a rather nasty premise.

My question to mystics is: What causes you to believe that? What do you see, that the rest of us don't? How did God's message get into your head? That's what's really baffling, not the things that they do as a consequence once they have been given The Aweful Truth.

"But if my kid is aged 12 and he's kinda like dad, i appreciate what you've taught me but i've decided in my 12 years of religion that i'm gonna stop going to church, after i break his backside, we're gonna have a little attitude adjustment and i'm gonna say you're gonna get in the car with the rest of the family and go to church. you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're gonna do what i tell you to."

Regardless of your opinion on God (and evolution vs. intelligent design), it's readily apparent that the teacher was stepping outside his defined role as a science teacher. If the school district and state dictates that a science teacher should teach evolution, that's what they need to teach. If they dictate they should teach intelligent design, that's what they should teach. And if the standards are to teach that humans come from storks and that pigs fly, the instructors should teach this or go to a different state/private school. Public schools are kind of like McDonalds... you may not receive the top of line, but it should always be consistent.

If this pastor/teacher thought that he was going to convert a bunch of high schoolers by damning them all to hell, he must not have a very successful church, and certainly should be fired immediately. If he really wanted to use the classroom as a pulpit, he should have chose philosophy as a subject, or just taught at a parochial school. The most he could have done was to just express his religion very simply (e.g. a cross around his neck, picture on his desk, whatever), and use kids' natural curiousity as a chance to invite them to his church to learn more outside of school. This is dangerously close to some line in the sand, but better to toe the line than to jump clear over it like he did.

Unless it is a seminary class, there should be NO room for religion in the class. Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.

Seriously, learning and study are on the opposite end of memorization and faith. It's not just a simple difference of opinion among some "teachers". It's a fundamental difference between logic and reason, and blind retardation.

No person espousing any type of religious dogma should be considered a teacher by the simple definition of the word. They are not in fact a teacher at that point, but a malignant propagandist for a religious agenda that, 99% of the time is ignorant and bad for humanity, and the rest of the living things on the planet.

If there is debate between religion and science, it is no longer a class room but a seminary room involving a lame argument devolved between two parties where one side uses reason and logic, and the other side says, "The bible says so!".

It's stupid and pointless and if YOUR tax dollars are paying for it, you should be damned pissed off.

I certainly am.

God can go hang out wherever he wants, but not where my money is getting wasted by morons.

I prefered the way it was done here (I'm not american) when I went to school (though I beleive they removed it since then, but anyhow).

We had strict rules about no religion in class. However,we had one, mendatory class, for every year of pre-collegial school (elementary, highschool, ) which was about moral and society. As part of that class, we were taught various aspects of all religions, in a non-biaised way, positive and negative, from the viewpoint of the scriptures, the people, the culture, and so o

This kind of crap happens ALL THE TIME. It is a given for any fundamentalist Christian sect that they will take whatever forum where they think they can get away with it and use it to give the hard sell. (And I do mean "sell", because it's not benevolence they're offering, but a product.)

Another Baptist preacher once used my uncle's funeral as an opportunity to try and convince the non-Christians in our family that we had better accept Jesus before OUR time was up. This jerk didn't even know my uncle, but just wanted to exploit the situation to try to get more people into his church.

Here, another typical instance of high-pressure salesmanship from a fundamentalist preacher, only this time it's not just you he's trying to sell his product to... but it's your CHILDREN.

So he tells your kids that they are going to burn in hell if they don't buy his shtick. That's damn close to child abuse.

Most Christians spread the Gospel not to fill up their church, but because we were commanded to share the one thing in life that we have discovered and that has been life-changing for us. Alright, there are Christians who do preach just to fill up their church. There are always people with corrupt motives. But majority does it out of pure concern for their fellow humans.

I don't have a problem with "spreading the gospel". That's fine. If you think you're helping people, great.

But don't hijack another forum with a captive audience and threaten people with eternal damnation if they don't start living like you.

That's the problem people have with Fundamentalist Christians. And no, it's not all Christians, it's those that want to control what our kids are taught in school, that want to get involved in the government and tell us all how to live, who we can or can't marry, what we can or can't do with our genitals, what kind of science we can study, what kind of movies we can watch, what kind of books we can read, and even what kind of vaccinations our kids can get.

-If- Christianity in fact was true, however, it would the atheist society that was committing child abuse. The atheist society today does alot more to try to spread atheism than the Christian society does to try spread the Gospel.

Name 4 atheist churches. Name 4 atheist political groups. Name 4 atheist anything. I could come up with at least 20 so-called Christian groups that want to influence the government or the media or do something else to "spread the gospel". There is no organized atheist movement of any consequence.

People falsly accuse only Christians of being overly opinionated and biased.

I'm sorry, did I hear a victim? Let me get out my violin and play some music to go along with the moaning.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone accuse Christians--especially in the general sense--of being overly opinionated or biased.

Anybody who chooses to have faith in a belief has an absolute right to it. My problem is when they use their unproven beliefs to control how I'm allowed to live. That's not being overly opinionated or biased. That's being tyrannical.

Well then, since we can't really prove which of the two (atheism or theism) is correct, that means atheists -also- are as opinionated- as it is right now, they are even more opinionated and biased.

I'm not an atheist, and I'm not a Christian, so this dichotomy strikes me as rather silly. But that's fine. You've framed the discussion so let's go with it.

Atheists are not the polar opposite of Christians. The fact that neither can be proven does not mean that either is just as or more opinionated than the other.

Letting people make their own unbiased decisions of what to believe or not believe in can never be done by only spreading one side of it as fact.

Um, ok. So keep your nose out of it and let people make their own decisions. Public schools don't "teach atheism". There is no atheism class. There are no "atheist teachings" sprinkled throughout the curriculum. There is no statement on whether there is a god or not a god in a public school or even generally on television. There is generally no atheist thought projected in music or movies either. I've never seen a movie proclaim that there is no god. The only examples of music declaring a non-existence of God can be found in a couple of heavy metal songs.

There are, however, Christian music, Christian movies and Christian television. There are Christian schools if you want to send your kids there. I've never heard of an optional Atheist school to send your kids to, but maybe one exists... somewhere.

As much as I believe in the seperation of church and state, I do also believe in equity. During my education, from junior high through college, there would occasionally be a teacher who would go out of their way to ridicule religion to the class. Not just talk about good or bad aspects, but just come out and ridicule religion - or even class members who were religious. I was never really involved or concerned one way or another, but the teachers were pretty mean-spirited towards some of the class members.

So, in be equitable, I think that the same standard should be applied to both sides. Either let everyone talk about religion as they please, or tell everyone to shut up about it. Just don't tell one group that they have to keep quiet, but allow the other side to keep on about it.

After all they were the only country scoring below the USA for belief in Evolution (recent survey). They were 34 on the list the USA was 33. Then again maybe he is disgruntled that Turkey is winning the race to root out rational thinkers.

When is "Intelligent Design" going to incorporate the belief that Darwins Evolutionary theory is the root of Terrorism? Another area where Turkey is ahead.

There's been a lot of teachers doing similar thing in the past, including, but not limited to, the idea that the US government carried out 9/11, and the myth that American Indians were all peaceful tree-hugging poets and philosophers until the horrible white man slaughtered them.

The fact is that there are many, MANY teachers who use their position of authority to try and brainwash their students. I'm sure most of you can think of at least one such experience in your student days. It's irrelevant whether the teacher is pushing religion, politics, historical revisionism, or wacky conspiracy theories; any of them constitute an abuse of authority, and none of them should be allowed. Teachers need to be able to present relevant information in an unbiased manner, not preach from the pulpit of their favorite cause célèbre.

If I did something bad, then lied about it to my boss, I should be fired. If I thought it wasn't bad, then I would have not lied about it. It's the lie that *everyone* should be behind getting him fired for. A kid claimed that the teacher said something. He bore false witness against the kid. The teacher is a pastor, but openly breaks the Commandments. He should be fired from being a pastor for that. He is a teacher but lies to his boss (the principal) about it. He should be fired for that. The idea of religion doesn't need to even be brought up to show that this guy is an undependable liar that should be fired.

To the teacher I remind him of one of the more significant commandments:

Thou shalt not bear false witness!

Over and over again, I have to sit and watch virtually every "religious" person I see break their god's laws on a regular basis. I live in the U.S. so I guess that's to be expected. Wish I could get some insight into why Bush think's it's okay to kill when his god says thou shalt not.

You don't see scientist sneaking into Religious schools to teach evolution.

No, but you do see teachers ridiculing and berating students to *do* have religious beliefs. Wanna try it out? Try stating in open class that you don't believe the theory of evolution is valid and watch the profs at your average University lay into you for being an idiot (or gullible, confused, brainwashed, etc...).

Betcha if this guy had done that there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage about it -- at least not on Slashdot.

Try stating in open class that you don't believe the theory of evolution is valid and watch the profs at your average University lay into you for being an idiot (or gullible, confused, brainwashed, etc...).

Ummm, okay. There's only one catch: as far as we know, the theory of evolution is valid. Nobody with an eyeball can deny that micro-evolution happens.

The problem, for religious types, shows up when we start drawing macro-conclusions that contradict their religious beliefs. Since they can't possibly accept

No, but you do see teachers ridiculing and berating students to *do* have religious beliefs. Wanna try it out? Try stating in open class that you don't believe the theory of evolution is valid and watch the profs at your average University lay into you for being an idiot (or gullible, confused, brainwashed, etc...).

I've had the benefit of having taken far too many courses (two Masters degrees and currently ABD on a Ph.D.), so I've actually witnessed this on more than one occasion. On each occasion, the

Simple, you perform the requested job as required.As a teacher, convey the information you are instructed to teach in an effective manner. Maintain classroom behaviour and enforce the rules fairly and with compassion.

If you feel it is morally wrong not to try and convert the students to your religion, the ethical thing to do is to simply be honest and not take a job where you would be prevented from what you personally consider your moral responsiblity. Lying saying you will not preach then doing so is also